Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

cyberinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 467 posts

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#221

Post by surgical_fire »

rdm_blackhole wrote: post #218
izacus wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling out blatant lying and bot propaganda isn't "smearing the opposition". It's disgusting that people run here, write utter complete lying bullshit and then you attack folks that say "hey, this is complete bullshit". Be better.

> Calling out blatant lying and bot propaganda isn't "smearing the opposition". I am not sure what you are trying to get at. Are you implying that this new draft is not in any way related to the recent Chat Control proposal that wanted to intercept all encrypted messages on phones in the EU, this same proposal that has been debated many times here on HN? If so, then I am sorry if you think this blatant lying. You mus…

The recent chat control proposal was shot down by the EU parliament.

It was proposed and pushed forward by member countries represented in other EU inatances. It seems obvious that governments of at least some member countries want this crap and try to get in implemented via EU. When it reached the instance that is more sensitive to public opinion, it was shot down.

This is why I tend to look more favorably on the EU than on any member state government.

The obvious solution is having the EU to be more representative. I dislike how entities like the EU Council and EU Commission are sometimes used to launder some countries' governments authoritarian intentions.

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#222

Post by delusional »

carlosjobim wrote: post #216
delusional wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wasn't the point i was asking for an argument for. What I wanted to know is how age verification is worse then allowing children to watch porn. To make that argument. > Source: I’m a parent. My kids haven’t seen porn and can’t access the internet. Are they above the age of 16? Because then you're either Amish or out of touch.

Age verification isn't the problem. It is just a tool for censorship. It's censorship which is the problem.

So to put the bricks together: Age verification is worse than allowing children to watch pornography, because age verification is censorship.

I hope you can see how that argument is not compelling.

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#223

Post by redeeman »

nirui wrote: post #109

In case people no longer remember, when China started to require websites to register for a license before be allowed to operate, it was for "protecting the children" too. This simple policy then goes on to silence most individual publisher(/self-media) and consolidated the industry into the hands of the few, with no opportunity left for smaller entrepreneurs. This is arguably much worse than allowing children to wat…

or maybe just maybe its time for people to realize that the EU is an enemy of the people, and hold the people pushing for this personally responsible.

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#224

Post by Kim_Bruning »

People keep looking at the consumer privacy vpns , but there's a huge field of commercial vpn usage for a broad spectrum of tasks in the european union. Point to point tunnels connecting two sites into a single network. Allowing access to (corporate) resources via laptops and mobile devices. Fixing the one way nature of crappy internet that most people are forced to work with these days (or simply never realized), etc etc.

Basically if you want to do any sort of remote work, I'm not saying you're necessarily using one right now, but the odds are good. Possibly the politician's own IT back-end might have ... opinions... on the ability of the executive to overly check the legislative too.

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#225

Post by graemep »

MandieD wrote: post #128
qnpnpmqppnp wrote: post #19

This title seems misleading. The EP paper appears to be highlighting the existence of a debate regarding VPN. Relevant quote: "Some argue that this is a loophole in the legislation that needs closing and call for age verification to be required for VPNs as well. In response, some VPN providers argue that they do not share information with third parties and state that their services are not intended for use by childre…

"Children's Commissioner for England"... that's not the EU. Really not the EU - they had a whole election and years-long process to leave the EU.

The point is that does not stop the EU from quoting the Children's Commissioner for England on the first page of this document:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2026/7826...

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#226

Post by Hikikomori »

pembrook wrote: post #132
Hikikomori wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These already exist in several eu countries. Imagine that there are governments that is not America and that actually work.

Just this year, France government ID system hacked: https://www.biometricupdate.com/202604/french-govt-confirms-...

That seems separate from any electronic id. Government already has records on your passport, biometrics or drivers license.

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#227

Post by afpx »

delusional wrote: post #222
carlosjobim wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Age verification isn't the problem. It is just a tool for censorship. It's censorship which is the problem.

So to put the bricks together: Age verification is worse than allowing children to watch pornography, because age verification is censorship. I hope you can see how that argument is not compelling.

It’s not only compelling to a lot of Americans, it’s foundational.

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#228

Post by JCattheATM »

ckjellqv wrote: post #188
pembrook wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What argument? You're the one that needs to argue the presence of harm, given you're the one arguing we need to create a surveillance dragnet to shield certain age groups of humans from witnessing how their species procreates. The default state is that humans procreate via sexual reproduction. You need to argue why we need to take action to hide this, especially given we let children witness other far more brutal act…

> This is arguably much worse Surely someone claiming it's arguable should be willing to make that argument. For me it's not that it's reproduction. Film that shows sex is not an issue as I see it and I don't know anyone that has developed serious addictions to sex in Hollywood film. However I know several people, family members included, that have absolutely obliterated their childhoods and early adult years by beco…

Sounds like the people you describe were outliers with some preexisting conditions, and probably shouldn't be used as any sort of baseline or point of comparison.

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#230

Post by carlosjobim »

delusional wrote: post #222
carlosjobim wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Age verification isn't the problem. It is just a tool for censorship. It's censorship which is the problem.

So to put the bricks together: Age verification is worse than allowing children to watch pornography, because age verification is censorship. I hope you can see how that argument is not compelling.

Age verification will be implemented as identity identification. And that means anything you read or write or watch or say will be tied to your identity, registered by the government and other organizations, and used against you as an individual.

Do you understand now? Or will you only understand when you get fired from your job and they won't tell you the reason?

Post reply on HN